Page 1005 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Australia, would take that kind of approach on anything. But, allowing for those who do support "Yes Minister" style theories, if they can see that this will happen they might be tempted to start that approach. So we have to be very careful about rushing things through and having to do things by the last minute.
That really brings me to the point of why we should accept this particular motion. If we accept this disallowance motion, a public consultation process can take place over the next six or seven weeks and the matter can come back into this Assembly at the next sitting. It is not such a huge issue and I think that would be an appropriate consultation process. Then we would have the opportunity to say that we have gone through the right process. That is when we can say, "Yes, we have done the right things; this variation is quite acceptable to the people of Canberra and it should go through. It is not acceptable just to the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association; it is acceptable generally to the people of Canberra and therefore the variation should go through".
What would the delay be when we come back for the next sitting? It will be mid-July when people will have to start dealing with notification. What will actually happen is that builders will say, "Hey, look, if we hold this off for two weeks, or three weeks, we can see how the public process goes. It is going to go through the Assembly. We will be able to proceed in our normal way. We will do the building in a different direction. We will build these other things before we build the fences". That small delay caused by the appropriate process being followed will not cause a huge amount of difficulty for the Housing Industry Association or the Master Builders Association. With that in mind, I urge members to reject this variation for the time being.
MR LAMONT (11.46): I think that this is one of those occasions when a homespun homily is appropriate.
Mr Kaine: Let us see whether you can spin one.
MR LAMONT: We will do that. I have listened to you for a number of years, Trevor, and that is basically all we have had. I do have some experience in that area. The homily is that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
Madam Speaker, this question of public consultation is, as Mr Moore and Ms Szuty have outlined, a vexed one. It is a question that the Government and, indeed, the Assembly need to be ever mindful of. What we have here is a variation which is saying that, where the limited discretion of the planners has been used consistently, we have been able to establish a trend of acceptance. That is what has been proposed. The actual discretion that the planners have on this occasion is, indeed, very small. The amount of discretion which the planners have been able to exercise for the last seven years is indeed minor. I think that that really is the test that we need to look at. What is being proposed is that the accepted standard for all courtyard, cottage and townhouse dwellings built in the last seven years should now be allowed to continue as part of the plan.
I reject the argument put forward by Mr Moore that a delay in this process until mid-July - it certainly will not be mid-July; it will be some time in August or September, if, indeed, we do delay this; another three or four months - is of no financial consequence to anybody.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .